










>•- ^o^ •vaster- 



















*bv* 









• ••• aO ^» •'"' «T^ 










^ *?K , ;- % .«* 



GOD OR OUR COUNTRY. 

r 



REVIEW 



OF THE 



REV. DR. PUTNAM'S DISCOURSE, 



DELIVERED ON FAST DAY, 



ENTITLED 



GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. 



" But true hearts a' — gae work awa' — 
" We '11 make the world better yet ! " 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, BY I. R. BUTTS, 

No. 2 School Street. 

1847. 



GOD OR OUR COUNTRY. 



REVIEW 



OF THE 



REV. DR. PUTNAM'S DISCOURSE, 



DELIVERED ON FAST DAY, 



ENTITLED 



GOD AND OUR COUNTRY. 






" But true hearts a'-^- ja£" workl aw£'— C • " • • 
" We '11 make the world better yet ! " 



BOSTON: 

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED, BY I. R. BUTTS, 

No. 2 School Stueet. 

1847. 



EE7~ 



t« Ufca* 



REVIEW. 



Neither the delivery of this Sermon by Dr. Putnam, 
nor its publication at the request of his congregation, is 
any matter of astonishment to Abolitionists. They are 
altogether too familiar with the many similar instances, 
on the part of ministers, either of incapacity to see the 
truth or faithlessness in its utterance, to be astonished 
at the course followed by Dr. Putnam on this occa- 
sion. They well remember that one eminent clergy- 
man defends capital punishment from the command 
"thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself " — and that 
another — an eminent Bishop, from the command 
"whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, 
do ye even so unto them," supports the system of 
slavery, and argues to the poor ignorant slaves that God 
requires them to serve their masters faithfully and hon- 
estly, and never to murmur at their condition ! 

Though not astonished, we see many reasons for re- 
gretting the position assumed by Dr. Putnam. Aside 
from his influence upon the opinions of others, — for Ins 
ownr eputation we regret that a man of his acknowl- 
edged goodness of heart, should have been unable 



to see anything but rashness, thoughtlessness and 
bad temper in the cry that is so common — "No 
union with slaveholders," (p. 21.) We think an 
examination of his Sermon will show that he himself 
was guilty of rashness and thoughtlessness in making 
the assertion. 

The great question of the day is thus stated by him. 
" May we as Christians properly recognize and support 
a form of government, or a national compact, when that 
government or compact adopts courses, and recognizes 
and maintains institutions, which are in themselves at va- 
riance ivith the spirit and precepts of the Master, Christ, 
and the divine law of love and justice ?" (p. 4.) 

The solution of a nobler question has never yet, in 
the providence of God, been committed to any peo- 
ple. The question is simply this ; may we as moral 
beings support a national compact which sustains in- 
stitutions clearly at variance with the moral law, — or 
what is the same thing — can we as moral beings sup- 
port immorality ? 

There is, it is true, " a widely active disposition in 
our community, at the present time, to apply moral 
tests to national measures and institutions, and to exam- 
ine them in the light of the Christian religion." (p. 5.) 
It is a source of profound joy that such is the fact. 

" Of course, it is found, on applying the strict test 
of the gospel to national proceedings and institutions, 
that they will not bear that test at all points. At many 
points there will be shortcomings, and at some points 
a flagrant violation of that perfect law. There is no 
nation on earth, nor has there ever been one, that will 



bear that test. Our own will not bear it. And in 
view of this lamentable fact, what shall we si\ and 
do? What ground shall we take? There are two 
ultra methods of settling this last question, — two forms 
of ultraism upon the subject. One is that which ex- 
cludes moral tests and Christian considerations entirely 
from a man's view of public and national affairs." (pp. 
5,6.) 

This method of course is rejected. 

" The other and opposite kind of ultraism is that 
which expresses itself in such language as this : — ' No 
union with slaveholders '; ' We will not be parties to 
a constitutional compact which recognizes and sustains 
a great iniquity ' ; ' The country which wages an un- 
necessary or unjust war (and many will say that all 
wars are unjust and unnecessary), that is not our coun- 
try. We are Christians, and will not own it. Let us 
separate. Let us dissolve the Union. Let us form 
a new and smaller one, or else live in righteousness 
and peace without one.' " (p. 7.) 

We will not object to these extracts, though they do 
not present in any very clear light, the reasonings of 
abolitionists. We will only say " we have no quarrel 
with the constitution, because it is the basis of a con- 
federated union of states ; but only because we see in 
it an alliance offensive and defensive between those 
states for the perpetuation of slavery, and consequent- 
ly the greatest of obstacles to its abolition as long as its 
obligations are in force. It is not the constitution, nor 
the union, any more than it is the church that abolition- 
ists desire to destroy; but only the national crime 
ivhich has made them its citadel and its sanctuary."* 

* Report of the Managers of the Mass. Anti Slavery Society, Jan. 27, 
1847.— (p. 85.) 



Proceeding to " examine candidly " this second kind 
of ultraism Dr. Putnam, continues : 

"The doctrine here stated is revolutionary. By 
many it is openly and honestly held as such, and is al- 
ways obviously such in its tendency. Well, there is 
such a thing, certainly, as a right of revolution. The 
only question is, What circumstances will justify the 
exercise of that right ? There are very grave consid- 
erations that should enter into the solution of this 
question." 

" In the first place it is to be considered that God or- 
dains civil society. He puts men together, and has so 
constituted them that they must live in societies. He 
ordains nations. National compacts or societies are not 
arbitrary and artificial. They grow up necessarily. 
Their form and extent are determined in each case by 
a great variety of circumstances, events, and affini- 
ties, over which a high Providence presides," 

* * * * "And then such so- 
cieties, nations, if they must exist, must have govern- 
ments, — that is, such customs, laws, institutions, 
and terms of union, as grow up out of the origin, cir- 
cumstances, and character of the particular nation. 
So that government itself, inasmuch as it is an essen- 
tial element of national society, which is a divine in- 
stitution, — government must itself be regarded as a 
divine institution." 

* * ••»■■•■.« Then, further, a 

society constituted as a nation necessarily is, must in- 
clude all sorts of men, and of course many that are 
deficient in sound knowledge and moral principle. 
And, of necessity, the latter sort of persons will have 
an influence, more or less, according to numbers and 
other circumstances, in producing bad or imperfect cus- 
toms, laws, and institutions, vitiating more or less the 



public acts and relations of the body politic. Then 
the question arises, Are the moral, Christian members 
of the society morally implicated in the evil thus pro- 
duced and done ? No, certainly, provided they em- 
ploy such action and influence as the institutions of the 
country enable them to use, to prevent the evil. They 
are not implicated." (pp. 8, 9.) 

Here we differ. God as a good being cannot ordain 
anything bad. He implants in the human heart the 
feeling of brotherhood — he surrounds us with the ties 
of home and kindred ; and these influences lead to the 
formation of societies and nations. In a limited sense, 
therefore, it is true that God ordains societies and na- 
tions, but it sounds strangely to hear the minister of a 
good being speak of his ordaining bad laws or institu- 
tions. God is not the author or ordainer of evil. The 
Being who formed of one blood all the nations of the 
earth, — whose chosen messenger taught us to love 
one another, desires that all men should live together 
as brethren, but does not ordain that one portion of 
the race shall oppress another, or make slaves of them. 
Hitherto he has permitted the existence of evil, but 
he has never ordained its existence. 

A man is morally implicated in the evil produced by 
society so far as he voluntarily supports it. He may 
submit to a ^reat deal of evil, but he cannot volunta- 
rily support it without being an evil-doer, and, conse- 
quently, without being morally wrong. He is not, 
in resisting a social evil, to rest satisfied with cm- 
ploying only such amount of action and influence 
as the institutions of the country permit him to use. 
The institutions of a country are not the work of 



God, but of man. They are the outward embodi- 
ments of the ideas and habits of the people. If these 
ideas and habits are bad, the institutions will be bad 
also. But God does not ordain the good and evil in the 
ideas or habits of any man, otherwise there could be no 
such thing as human responsibility. God does not 
therefore ordain the good or evil in the ideas and hab- 
its of any collection of men — of a nation or society. 
Consequently he cannot be said to ordain the particu- 
lar institutions or laws we find around us. These are 
human productions — the embodiments of human pas- 
sions and human thoughts. So far as these laws and 
institutions are right and good, God may be said to 
sanction them, but it cannot without irreverence be 
said that he sanctions or ordains any idea, habit, law, 
or institution which is bad. 

It is morally wrong, therefore, for a man to rest sat- 
isfied with employing in the prevention of evil, mere- 
ly such amount of action and influence as the institu- 
tions around him enable him to use, — because these in- 
stitutions are merely the manifestation in part of the 
very evil which he wishes to overthrow. He is to take 
for his standard of action the law of God, not that of 
man. He is not to adopt as his rule of right and action, 
a standard necessarily imperfect, and most likely to be 
wrong on the very point where action is needed. 

" How am I implicated," asks Dr. Putnam, " sup- 
posing that I am a thorough Christian, and have al- 
ways advocated and voted for good measures, — how 
am I implicated in the evil that exists or is done in the 
nation as such ? I did not ordain the nation to be, 
but God ordained it in his high providence. I did 



not have the forming of its ideas, usages, institutions, 
character. I did not become a member of the nation 
from my own choice. I was born into it, put into it, 
by the Creator.* I cannot help, therefore, being as- 
sociated with some bad men in the national society, 
and so witnessing, perhaps suffering from, some bad 
institutions and measures. I cannot escape from this 
relationship. God holds me to it ; for no call of duty 
requires me to expatriate myself ; and if 1 did, I must 
adopt some other country, where I should find social 
evil also, either in the same or a different shape. I am 
not implicated. Society must exist, and my nature 
and the laws of God require me to be a member of 
society. There are bad members in it, and I cannot 
help it. Social evils exist and will arise, and I cannot 
help it. I can neither disown society, nor can I make 
it perfect. I am not implicated in its unchristian acts 
and institutions. 

" We are responsible only for those which we ap- 
prove individually, and vote to establish or perpetuate." 
(p. 9, 10.) 

True it is that " no call of duty requires me to 
expatriate myself." God has placed me here, and 
imposed upon me the duty of acting rightly here. I 
am surrounded with institutions which call upon me 
and others to act immorally. It is wrong for me to rest 
satisfied merely with opposing such immoral acts just so 
far as such institutions will permit. A law higher far 
than any human law or institution must govern my 
actions. If the law of God, written on each man's 
heart dictates one course, and the law of man written 
in the statute-book points out another, every man who 

* This argument really leads to this result. I did not make myself a 
being- prone to sin. I did not surround myself with incitements to sin. 
God did these tilings. God is then the author of and inciter to evil ! 

2 



10 



desires to act rightly must obey the former. We are 
implicated in and responsible for, not only those im- 
moral acts and institutions which we approve in- 
dividually, but also for those which by any voluntary 
act on our part we tend to strengthen or support. The 
plea, that God ordains society composed of bad and 
good men, — and consequently institutions made up of 
bad and good elements, will not avail as a defence for 
any voluntary support of the evil contained in them — 
because the plea is not true. God does not ordain 
anything to exist which is not good. If he did ordain 
the existence of evil. — he would be the author of evil. 
All human responsibility would be at an end, and each 
one of us in the anguish of his spirit, might say with 
perfect propriety — 

" All good to me is lost ; 
Evil be thou my good : — " 

" In the second place, when anything like a revolution 
is contemplated, — it ought to be considered whether 
the moral evils which belong to or spring from the ex- 
isting national organization are really intolerable or 
enormous, relatively to the general condition of civilized 
and nominally Christian nations ; and whether those 
evils are greater than might be expected to result from 
the moral imperfections of the people as individuals, 
taking into view all the untoward circumstances in 
which the present generation finds itself placed, and 
the usages and ideas handed down from its predeces- 
sors. It is also to be considered whether those evils 
are likely to be removed, and for the future prevented, 
by a subversion of the national organization, — and if 
that is likely, then, whether there is good ground of 
assurance that the fact and process of a political and 
social disruption, in connection with the bad elements 



11 



of character previously extant among the people, are 
not likel\ to produce other and equivalent or greater 
evils? When all these questions ma) be answered in 
the affirmative, revolution is justifiable; but never 
otherwise. We have no moral right to do or say any- 
thing to induce disunion and revolution, upon moral 
and Christian grounds, until we are deliberately and 
dispassionately convinced that the public sins and 
social evils under the present organization are greater 
than might be expected from the character of the 
people, and that a better average state of society for the 
whole country might and would be created out of the 
same materials, the same men, the same ideas and 
customs, the same amount of christian principle and 
mental light. For we can have no materials more or 
better than these out of which to form a new society, 
and these, however bad, will all remain to be disposed 
of as much after as before the dissolution. We have 
no moral right, in a fit of spleen or disgust, mortification 
or anger, or any unfounded and presumptuous idea of 
responsibility, — we have no right, on such grounds and 
in such a state of mind, to say a word or take a step 
to shake the pillars of the time-hallowed fabric of soci- 
ety which Providence has erected around us and placed 
us in, and by which and in which he gives such an 
unbounded sphere for outward welfare, for enjoyment, 
and for personal duty and holiness. The plea of 
humanity cannot sanctify a rash trifling with things so 
sacred as the providential bonds that hold society 
together, in such a degree of peace and amity as the 
human lot admits of. 

" There is such a thing as the right of revolution ; and 
there are occasions in the progress of human affairs, in 
which it may be righteously exercised ; but he who 
lightly provokes or anticipates the occasion, neither 
obeys Christ nor serves his race, — is false both to 
Ca3sar and to God." (pp. 11, 12.) 



12 



The revolution sought by the abolitionists is not one 
of violence but of principle. — We expressly repudiate the 
idea of using force to attain our purpose. We would 
not accomplish our end to-morrow if we could do it 
merely by shedding the blood of one man. On the 
contrary, we rely on the exercise of moral power alone. 
We seek to effect such a moral revolution as, in its 
course, shall be powerful enough either to relieve the 
constitution from all taint of slavery or to break it in 
pieces. We seek to change the hearts of the people, 
to make them really feel that all men are brethren. 
When they feel thus, their acts will be in accordance. 
We rely with perfect confidence upon the power of 
truth alone, feeling sure that so long as God is just, 
ultimate success is certain. But when the people are 
ready for our revolution, we shall not, as Dr. Putnam 
says, have the same men, the same ideas and customs, 
and the same amount of christian principle to deal with 
in forming a new nation. Regenerated men, more 
elevated ideas, nobler customs, and a more exalted 
christian principle will present themselves. 

Before commencing this moral revolution, (even 
though a dissolution of the existing national compact 
must necessarily attend our success,) we are not to sit 
down and decide whether our national sins " are really 
intolerable or enormous, relatively " to the general 
condition of civilized and nominally christian nations." 
Because other nations are steeped to the lips in 
iniquity is no reason why we should be, — is no excuse 
for our remaining so. If all " moral evils" are not 
"really intolerable" under all circumstances, we would 
like to ask what " moral evils" are tolerable ? Is the 



13 



Christian to refrain from denouncing as sinful our slave- 
holding national compact, and calling all men to cease 
yielding it support, simply because the sin of slavehold- 
ing is not really enormous when compared with the 
sins of other " nominally" christian nations ? This 
comparative Christianity is altogether too easy to be real 
Christianity. 

Dr.Putnam refers to " two circumstances which tend 
at the present time to disaffect the minds of many 
towards our national compact, and which give rise to 
many feelings, many words, and some acts, which, as 
far as they go, go to weaken the bonds of union, and 
to hasten the time when they will be severed ; namely, 
the existing war with Mexico, and the institution of 
slavery." 

The war considered by itself, simply as an unjust 
and wicked act, and not as a direct result of the com- 
promise, on the subject of slavery, contained in the 
national constitution, has never, so far as we are aware, 
been considered by abolitionists as constituting any 
ground for calling for a dissolution of the national com- 
pact. Many of us consider all wars to be wrong. 
We cannot agree with any one in thinking that 
even this war is " not unjust towards Mexico" — or 
that " she deserved chastisement and can " claim no 
sympathy." Considering, as we do, that this war 
originated in the desire to extend the curse of slavery, 
we shall confine our remaining remarks to Dr. Putnam's 
suggestions on the subject of slavery. 

What ought a Christian to do and think about slavery ? 
asks Dr. Putnam. The answer is, — 



14 



" In the first place, let the Christian citizen not 
overlook the bad moral character of the institution, or 
become indifferent to its many evils, nor let him do 
any thing, by action or neglect, to promote its exten- 
sion or continuance." (p. 21 .) 



It is then an ultraism, to suppose that the first duty 
a christian is to be active 
of " bad moral character !" 



of a christian is to be active in removing an institution 



" In the second place, let him preserve his reason, his 
equanimity, his temper, and learn to look calmly upon 
an institution which Providence has permitted to exist 
almost ever since the first formation of civil society, and 
which the same Providence seems likely to suffer to 
exist for some time longer. That is no reason why we 
should not use all fair and legitimate influence to short- 
en its days ; but it is a reason why we should not 
suffer ourselves to be excited and angry, or to hate 
those portions of the country on which, by their fault 
or their misfortune, this evil presses, or why we should 
wish to be separated from them." (p. 21.) 

We are glad to see that Dr. Putnam does not say 
that Providence has ordained the existence of slavery. 
And yet there is really little cause for joy. If his 
position is true that " government, that is, such cus- 
toms, laws, institutions and terms of union as grow 
up out of the origin, circumstances and character of 
the particular nation" " must be regarded as a di- 
vine institution," has not Providence ordained the 
institution of slavery? — and, if so, does it not necessa- 
rily follow that, in the opinion of Dr. Putnam, God is 
the author of evil ? — For, if any custom, law or institu- 
tion can be said to have grown up out of the circum- 



15 



stances and character of a people, then has the 
institution of slavery thus grown up. 

In other respects we fully agree with the sentiments 
expressed in this extract. We should be sorry to think 
that abolitionists hated the Southerners for any reason. 
We do not seek a separation, because slavery exists 
at the South as a State institution simply. It is because 
we are implicated in its support, so long as the present 
bond of union remains, that we seek a separation. 

Dr. Putnam continues : 

" I cannot see anything but rashness, thoughtlessness, 
and bad temper in the cry that is so common, — 'No 
union with slaveholders? Suppose we should separate 
and break up our country ; will that abolish slavery ? 
Why, they at the South talk quite as loudly about 
dissolving the union for the purpose of perpetuating 
slavery. No union with slave-holders ? And why 
not? Because they are sinners, you must say; for we 
are now considering only the position of those who 
desire dissolution on moral grounds. No union with 
sinners ! What shall we do ? We cannot, then, have 
a Northern union of States, for there are sinners here 
of all sorts ; and among other sorts of sin, there is a 
great deal of sympathy with slaveholding, and a read- 
iness to help the South in perpetuating and extending 
it. There has never been a public measure adopted in 
favor of slavery without the aid of Northern votes. 
No union with sinners ? Why then we must dissolve 
all compacts, — that of the commonwealth, the coun- 
ty, the city ; we cannot trade with men, or do any 
business with them, for many ot them are great sin- 
ners, and all of them more or less. We must dissolve 
our families, for there is sin there. The Christian 
must break all bonds and stand literally alone ; nay, 
according to that principle, — no union with sin, — al- 



16 



most every man would have to tear soul and body apart, 
for one or the other of them he will find stained with 
some sin. (pp. 21,22.) 

The reason why Dr. Putnam could see nothing 
but rashness, thoughtlessness and bad temper in the 
cry — No union with slaveholders — is a simple one — 
he did not understand its meaning. No abolitionist 
ever yet refused to co-operate with slaveholders, when 
he could do so without countenancing or supporting 
slavery. Dr. Putnam should have examined the anti- 
slavery productions a little more carefully, and conversed 
with anti-slavery men a little more freely before being 
guilty of the rashness and thoughtlessness of making 
this charge. That such are really the sentiments of 
abolitionists is well known to all who read their publi- 
cations. For the benefit of those not thus acquainted, 
we will present the following passages taken from a 
pamphlet written by Wendell Phillips, entitled " Can 
Abolitionists vote or take office under the United States 
Constitution ?" The name of the author is sufficient 
guaranty of the quality of the anti-slavery doc- 
trine — whilst the design of the pamphlet was to ex- 
plain and defend this very cry "No union with slave- 
holders." 

" Nobody disputes" says Mr. Phillips, " that we may 
rightly assist the worst government in doing good, pro- 
vided we can do so without at the same time aiding the 
wrong it perpetrates, (p. 22.) 

" If I have joined with others in doing wrong, is it 
either presumptuous or unkind, when my eyes are 
opened, to refuse to go any further with them in their 



17 



career of guilt? Does love to the thief require me to 
help him in stealing ? Yet this is all we refuse to do. 
We will extend to the slaveholder all the courtesy he 
will allow. If he is hungry we will feed him ; if he 
is in want, both hands shall be stretched .out for his aid. 
We will give him full credit for all the good that he 
does, and our deep sympathy in all the temptations 
under whose strength he falls. But to help him in his 
sin, to remain partners icith him in the slave-trade, is 
more than he has a right to ask." (p. 29.) 

It is a mistake, therefore, on the part of Dr. Putnam, 
to suppose that abolitionists mean no union with slave- 
holders, in anything, or for any purpose. All that we 
mean by the expression is, that we will have no union 
in slaveholding — that we will yield no voluntary sup- 
port or countenance to the institution, but on the 
contrary that we will use all the moral influences within 
our reach to destroy it. 

What makes this mistake the more striking is the 
fact that Dr. Putnam proceeds thus : 

" The only sense in which we can say, without ab- 
surdity, that we will have no union with slaveholders, 
or with any other class of sinners at the North or the 
South, is this, — that we will not take any part in their 
sin, nor encourage, nor countenance it. And this the 
Christian may and should always say." (pp. 22, 23.) 

We should think that the glaring absurdity of any 
other meaning than this, would have led Dr. Putnam 
to doubt the correctness of any other. A moment's 
investigation would have sufficed to show to him what 



1 



was our true meaning. But notwithstanding this, 
although ample means for ascertaining the truth were 
all around him, on a mistake caused by his own want 
of thoroughness, he has asserted our idea to be " at 
once foolish, selfish and unchristian" and that there is 
neither " humanity nor religion in proposing it" ! Still 
it is very gratifying to us to learn from his own lips, 
that all christians should adopt the cry, " No union with 
slaveholders," in such a truly abolition sense. We may 
hope that at some day, not far distant, we may not 
differ so entirely as to what acts amount to taking 
part in the sin of slavery or encouraging or counten- 
ancing it. 

Thus far the course of the Christian, as marked out 
by Dr. Putnam consists in not overlooking the bad 
moral character of slavery, or becoming indifferent to 
its evils, or doing anything to promote its extension or 
continuance, and in keeping calm and preserving his 
equanimity. One and only one specific course of 
action is recommended, — namely — resistance to the 
creation of new slave states. 

" It is the right of the Free States, and I wish it were 
more extensively felt to be their sacred duty, to oppose 
by their votes, and all legitimate influences, the crea- 
tion of any new Slave States, especially out of any ter- 
ritory, Mexican or American, that is now free." (p. 25.) 

Dr. Putnam concludes his sermon in the following 
vein : 

" Whatever be the course of events on this and 



19 



kindred subjects, I see no occasion for passionate i \- 
citcmcnt. Let us use our influence for the right, — use 
it soberly, in good-nature, unprovoked, without threats 

and without alarm ; and in the mean time, let God's 
providence work on, and work out its great designs, as 
it surely will, in its own good time. 

11 We cannot but deplore the moral evils of all sorts 
that fester in the hearts of the people, and get embod- 
ied in institutions, and sometimes break out into war. 
We will deplore them, and do what we may in our 
little spheres to cure them, or lessen their growth. 
But still be calm. They are nothing new. They have 
not arisen in a day, and will not be cured in a day. 
They are not more or greater than they have always 
been among men, but rather less. We must learn, not to 
be idle, not to be indifferent, not to assist and counten- 
ance wrong, but to be patient with it. God is patient. 
He is long-suffering. He takes a great deal of time for 
the removal of evil, and the accomplishment of his 
plans. We cannot hurry him, ice cannot take the work 
out of his hands. We can only co-operate with him, and 
wait his time.'''' 

* " Let us not childishly, petu- 

lantly, grow angry and impatient, and clamor for na- 
tional dismemberment, when things go wrong, as they 
often will in this world, — but have faith in God, and 
brotherly kindness towards our fellow-men, and possess 
our souls in patience. If the holy God can have pa- 
tience with his froward children, how much more 
should we, who share their imperfection and perverse- 
ncss, and are in our various ways, it is likely, as bad as 
the rest ! 

" Who are we, sinners every one, who cannot li\ e in 
the nearest relations of life without sin, nor even plead 
for righteousness and Christian love without losing 
often the very spirit that we desire to spread, — who 
are we, to say to any class of our fellow-citizens, or any 



20 



portion of our country, i Stand aside ; let there be no 
fellowship between us, for we are holier than ye" ? (pp. 
27, 28.) 

The obvious tendency of remarks like these is to 
render men indifferent to all reform. God, in his own 
good time, it is said, will remove the evil of slavery. 
Let us therefore possess our souls in patience, and in 
the mean time, do what we may in our little spheres 
to lessen its growth ! Still, however, do all that we may, 
we cannot hurry God, we cannot take the work out of 
his hand. Slavery will not be abolished, do what we 
may, or neglect as much as we please, one instant 
sooner than he wills ! 

Very true it is that God governs this world, — but in 
removing evils he does not personally interfere. He 
removes them solely through the agency of man ; and 
man has the power to overcome evil, otherwise it would 
not be his duty to act rightly. If I have not the power 
to resist evil successfully, it is not my duty to resist it 
at all. Doubtless this power of resistance is from 
God, but still it is a power clearly possessed by every 
morally responsible being. God has entrusted to man 
the work of removing sin from the world. He has 
given to man the power to accomplish this work. 
He calls upon us all, daily and hourly, to exercise this 
power. He is continually urging us to resist evil to 
the uttermost. We are not to rest contented with 
anything short of continued warfare. We cannot hurry 
him, it is true, but he urges us. We cannot take any 
work out of his hand, but he has given us this work to 
do. Unless we faithfully perform this work, as beings 



21 



having the power to perform it, we are false to the great 
trust committed to us ; — we bury our talent in the earth. 

As to the charge of a pharisaical spirit, contained 
in the latter part of this extract, it is sufficient to 
observe that it is no more pharisaical for us to say to 
the slaveholder, we will have no fellowship with you in 
slaveholding, than it is for the repentant thief to say 
to his former comrade I will no longer unite with you 
in thieving. 

We hasten to bring these remarks to a close. Dr. 
Putnam admits that no Christian can take any part 
in the sin of slaveholding, or encourage or countenance 
it. Does he come up to his own standard ? Docs he 
give this institution of " bad moral character" no sup- 
port or countenance ? We aver that he is both willing 
to support it himself — and that he actually in this 
sermon advises others to support it ! 

The whole sermon is devoted to opposing the idea 
of abolitionists, that the national constitution should 
be dissolved. He is not only in favor of supporting it 
himself, but he urges all others to support it also. 

Now what is the Constitution of the United States ? 
// is a compact which ivas devised to support the institu- 
tion of slavery, and which for over fifty years has in 
fact supported it ! 

li By Art. I, § % we offer a bounty upon slaveholding : 
because it provides that the freemen in the Slave States, 
solely because they are slaveholders, shall have greater 
political power than the same number of freemen in 
the Free States. We tempt them by the promise of 
political power and honor to increase the number of their 



slaves by all means. We say to the slaveholders, ' Gen- 
tlemen, true, we consider slaveholding to be an insti- 
tution of " bad moral character," but nevertheless, go 
on, increase and multiply your slaves ; and in the pro- 
portion of three-fifths of your immorality we will give 
you political strength, to wield in favor of slavery and 
against the cause of freedom. To use the words of 
John Quincy Adams, the effect of this clause has been 
" to make the preservation, propagation, and per- 
petuation OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND ANIMATING 
SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT." 

" By Art. 4, ^ 2, we declare that there is no spot in 
all our country, this so much boasted land of freedom 
where the runaway slave who has followed that blessed 
light of God, the North star, may rest himself in safety 
— no spot from which his master may not retake him — 
no spot from ivhich we will not aid to tear him! 

" By Art. 1,^8, and Art. 4, ^ 4, we freemen, declare 
that if the slaves rise, as our fathers did of yore, and 
strike for freedom, we ivill do battle against them — that 
we will present to the world the spectacle of freemen 
fighting against freedom. 

This is the compact which Dr. Putnam not only 
countenances, but which he is solicitously anxious to 
support! He argues through a whole sermon in de- 
fence of its support ! Must we not say to him — 
Physician, heal thyself! If as a Christian he cannot 
even countenance the sin of slavery, how can he, as a 
christian, support the Constitution which obliges him 
to return a fugitive slave to his master ? 

One other suggestion and we will close. Dr. Put- 
nam proposes to elect such representatives to Congress 



23 

as will use their influence to prevent the spread of 
slavery over new territory. He advises this course. 
He is eloquent in its praise. He has therefore no ob- 
jection on moral grounds, so far as the question of slavery 
is concerned, to becoming a Representative himself, 
or sending another person as his Representative. 

And what must be the first act which he does as 
Representative ? He must call God to witness that he 
" will support the Constitution of the United States " 
— not that he will submit to its exactions — not that 
he will support some of its parts — but that he will 
support all oj its provisions. He promises before God 
to support the return of the panting fugitive to his 
master — to support the suppression of slave insurrec- 
tions by the national government — to support the offer 
of a bounty upon slaveholding ! Arc these acts con- 
sistent with his duty as a Christian ? Does not such 
a Christian Representative " overlook the bad moral 
character " of the institution ? Does he not " become 
indifferent to its many evils " if he is willing to swear 
to support it? Does he do nothing to promote its 
continuance ? 

This "reasoning" may seem to be " mistaken" — but 
it is not!— This " moralizing" may seem to be " mor- 
bid" — but it is not /—It is neither " a false nor a fool- 
ish plea, that we must dissolve the union on Christian 
grounds, to avoid the responsibility" of countenancing 
slavery. We may be false to Caesar,— but, according 
to the moral light which we possess, we are not false 
to God. Traitors we may be to our country— trai- 
tors we are not to God. 











V 






**\ 














V 








A°« 




>°^ 




*0 ^ *?8a5«V «.K c* *>^^« ^0 ^ *^W* ^ o 





>A r 0* .^'-** ^ 




<>^ *"&■ 









°o 






. a^ *g3koi* ^a <£ ♦ .KVw/h. . ^ a^ ♦ ©aia» <£a A »^ 








v oV* 







^^ /j^V ^A^ 




vf»9' 






























*T— - 

llB VMRT 

BOO<BINO(NC 



v^ 












^ ••••• A <> ♦'TV.* A v o- ' 









